No Greater Love is about getting the chance to die for something your say you would die for. This is your chance to really see what you are made of and how much you love those who are close.

2.) What do the characters do?**

The characters face their arch enemies and own personal demons to save someone or something they care about.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

The GM plays the opposition and attempts to make the game as brutal on the players and characters as possible. He is at liberty to afflict the characters any way he can.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

The setting is a great city that has fallen into corruption. A place that was once a bastion for charity and community has become a cesspool of violence and corruption. This puts the character into immediate conflict with his environment and provides the GM with plenty of material he can use. All this darkness and evil drives the character towards his chance to die for someone.

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

The Character Creation sets up the conflicts for the game. The players describe who is out to kill their character, who their character wants to save, and the weaknesses the character suffers from.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

There are several behaviors rewarded. GMs are rewarded with more resources for forcing the characters to make tough choices. Players are rewarded for overcoming their enemies, including other characters in their story, and staying focused on the person they love.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

GMs gain additional resources to challenge players as the players defeat their enemies. Players gain Dignity which is their main currency for buying advantages and increasing their other resources for including their fellow players in their story and for beating their foes.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

The players drive the action towards their beloved. The object is for them to save the one they love. The player controls his character and the one he loves. The GM is responsible for portraying the evil cutthroats who try to stop the PCs from succeeding. His job is to make it so tough on the players that they might consider giving up. The GM controls every character the players do not.

9.) What does your game do to command the player's attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

The players take someone or something personal from their real life that they love and puts that thing in danger. Few people ever have to face that in real life. Thus in this game, they are challenged in ways they hope will never really happen to them. With something or someone the player really loves at stake, their attention will almost certainly be engaged.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?<11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?<12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters advance by moving toward the climax. As their Dignity decreases, their will to live also decreases. Raising it requires the players to sacrifice relationships and abilities.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Characters are born to die. The advancement forces the players into making the decision to go for saving their beloved or to walk away from the situation.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

I want the players to feel emotion in this game. I want them to feel anger, despondence, fear, sadness, and so on. By putting something the players truly care about at stake, I feel that the players will take the actions of the game very seriously.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

I put extra color in the Setting. I wanted the environment of the characters to mean something. I divided the city up into five sections, each with its own distinct flavors and hazards. The Setting serves as a context for the players and a resource for the GMs.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?<<18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

This game will become part of DL-Quarterly Series #2.

19.) Who is your target audience?

My target audience is players who are hard core narrativists. This game is not for people who just want to flirt with narrativism. Also, the game is inspired somewhat by Sin City. I can see fans of that comic book series really getting into No Greater Love.

I'm interested to know why, if there are real-life objects of affection involved, there is a detailed fictional setting in the game.

It's an interesting combination. What's the reasoning?

Because the Setting is what I wanted the player to not worry about. Vincent says things like "design what doesn't matter" and let the players take it from there. That's sorta what I did here. The Setting enhances the opposition, gives context for the conflicts, and aids the GM. The purpose for adding lots of color to the Setting was to better facilitate the System. I'm dabbling a lot more with Settings that have actual mechanics that affect play. No Greater Love is a step in that direction. I'm glad you think it's cool

Peace,

-Troy

PS: Malcolm, I'm not ignoring your response, it's just that your question will take a longer answer and I want to get it right. As soon as I can explaine my rationale for the dice mechanics, I'll reply

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Characters are born to die. The advancement forces the players into making the decision to go for saving their beloved or to walk away from the situation.

This statement is slightly confusing for me. You are forced to decide at the end if it worths to die for your beloved. But you say there is always the possibility to walk away from the situation.Does it mean that you quit your beloved and you do not die? That you part away from the extreme situation and pressure? What is the benefit for the player of doing it? It sounds like you quit the game. Or are you talking about a closing scene?I have the feeling I'm missing something, or that this statement is not fitting well with the rest.

Is this idea of "protecting a beloved person" inspired by your Game-Chef experience? Or was it already on your mind? Just curious.

No Greater Love was written well before the Game Chef contest. The two games might have somewhat similar themes, but go in very different directions with them. Hunter Rose explores the Situation of the Huntsmen. That game asks "What would it be like to be a Huntsman?" Players are given the freedom to explore the Setting and Characters, but not much freedom to decide what a Huntsman actuially is or what defines the Huntsman society. That's spelled out by the game text.

No Greater Love asks, "If you were faced with this crisis concerning a loved one, how would you react? Would you really put your life on the line for them?" Players are given the freedom to define everything for themselves. The rules for creating a character are minimal, with the only background for the character coming from the player's imagination. The Setting does not affect the character creation in any meaningful way at all (which is very very different from Hunter Rose).

Now here is where I answer your second question. In order to allow the players freedom to define the characters, conflicts, and resolutions for themselves, they must also have the freedom to decide not to address those things. If I provided no avenue for players to give up, walk away, or extract themselves from the story, then I would be answering the question the game asks for them. As the designer, I don't want to do that. A "giving up" mechanic is absolutely necessary to preserve the sanctity of choice in this game. But remember, you would be giving up on your own child, your grandmother, or your girlfriend. That's not an easy choice to make.

As for what players gain by choosing to give up is a release from the preasure and tension the game forces on them. I'm not sure how this will work in play yet. To be honest, this game scares the shit out of me. I'm almost afraid to try it. I tell people what the game is about, and their eyes get really big and they say, "Really?!?! I gotta do that?" Putting my wife or my sister or my father at stake in a game, to be used as bait by the GM any way he wants, is frightening to me. I might have to start with something less "beloved" to me, like my diary or something. This game has the potential to be really good, but I can see how potentially dangerous it can be too. The mechanics are fine, I think, but it's the play that will show what No Greater Love is really made of.

I'm seeing several possible games here, and I'm curious which one you are actually designing. Much of it comes down to the protections awarded to the sacrifice of one's life for the beloved. If the sacrifice is sacrosanct - i.e. it will fully save the beloved, then the GM and the game should center on the aspects of a character's life other than the beloved, to accentuate the cost. If a player has no guarantee of the effect of the character's death, then the GM should rightly focus on the uncertainty of the risk, and perhaps even of the outcome, opening the chance that your character's death may have no real benefit at all.

Even if this is something that can me adjusted in the game, the distinction should be very clearly made before hand (perhaps in typical social contract form). After all, imagine the betrayal of a player who has risked all to get to a final confrontation, and whose character takes the place of her beloved in being executed, only to have her beloved killed a few minutes later regardless - because the GM decided the killer was lying.

I'm seeing several possible games here, and I'm curious which one you are actually designing. Much of it comes down to the protections awarded to the sacrifice of one's life for the beloved. If the sacrifice is sacrosanct - i.e. it will fully save the beloved, then the GM and the game should center on the aspects of a character's life other than the beloved, to accentuate the cost.

This is what the game does. The Beloved is hardly "on screen" during play. It is used as bait by the GM and as a goal for the player.

The question was this: why is the setting a FICTIONAL one, when the beloved is a REAL one.

Not why is the setting detailed.

Put another way, if the players are from New York, and someone says "My mother is my beloved" and she also lives in New York... Why isn't this game set in New York, which is similarly a very detailed setting? What does the juxtaposition of real people and fictional setting provide?

I see the game idea is focused in a complete different thing than Hunter Rose, but I was curious. It seems you have been playing with exploring that idea about self-sacrifice, approaching it from different angles. This game is focusing in the hard angle.

Now here is where I answer your second question. In order to allow the players freedom to define the characters, conflicts, and resolutions for themselves, they must also have the freedom to decide not to address those things. If I provided no avenue for players to give up, walk away, or extract themselves from the story, then I would be answering the question the game asks for them. As the designer, I don't want to do that. A "giving up" mechanic is absolutely necessary to preserve the sanctity of choice in this game. But remember, you would be giving up on your own child, your grandmother, or your girlfriend. That's not an easy choice to make.

As for what players gain by choosing to give up is a release from the pressure and tension the game forces on them. I'm not sure how this will work in play yet.

I understand you want to make the players answer the questions on themselves. I also see that the tension of the game may be high at some points. It may arrive a moment when you really may want some release. But if giving-up means quiting the game completely, without the opportunity to come back, just sitting and watching how the other solve their situations, I doubt anyone will choose that option.

I would expect to continue playing. But I must say that I cannot see options. - If you do not really part away, but come back later, you have not yet really answer the question. You have postponed it for later.- If you do really part away, you may get to know about how your beloved died, which is even nastier. Not a real release, and you can not participate or really do anything.- If you decide to explore the consequences of failing to your beloved and let her die, it is a complete different game.

I suppose you want to make a game which leads to a climax scene, where you know that if you sacrifice your life, your beloved will be finally safe (and the game ends for you), or you decide to give-up (and the game ends anyway). But why not to die in such final scene? I suppose that giving-up perhaps may preserve some other, perhaps more selfish values (dignity, power), perhaps not so selfish (lives of others, the community prosperity, whatever...?) But this sounds me as another different concept and another different game.

I'm still not clearly seeing how you envision players quiting.Is this of help? Or I'm just too stubborn?

The question was this: why is the setting a FICTIONAL one, when the beloved is a REAL one.

Not why is the setting detailed.

Oh, I see what you mean now. There are several reasons. The main reason is simple. Setting the game in a city where the players have actual experience would make the Setting way to comfortable and familiar for them. They can feel confident that they will be able to rely on knowing the geography, culture, points of interest, short cuts, and so on. If the game is set in a ficticious world where everything is unfamiliar to them, they are not distracted by what they know about the Setting nor are they able to use the Setting as an advantage. The Setting is an advantage for the GM, the players should have to fight and fight hard for everything they get from it.

Secondly, and more from a design perspective, it's easier for me to control and justify the mechanical effects the Setting has on the game if I design the Setting. Using something from real life adds a variable I don't want to deal with.

Third, there are certain elements of the setting I feel are vital to play that I want to A) make sure get included and B) get highlighted by the text. No city in America fits the bill of what I want exactly. Imagine the setting is a mash-up of Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. I'm not sure I can get that conglomeration out of New York or Boston for instance.

Fourth, more selfishly, I wouldn't want to do the research to include a real world city. That's just not interesting to me. Nor do I want to include rules that allow players to choose a real world city and then add relevant effects to it for the game. That takes away the focus on the characters and the conflicts.

II'm still not clearly seeing how you envision players quiting.Is this of help? Or I'm just too stubborn?

Heh, no you are not being too stubborn. Walking away from the game allows the players to come to the realization that they aren't willing to die for whatever they said they were. That might be for a million different reasons. Each player will be different. I imagine most players will try to save their beloved or die trying. However, I do believe there will be some who say, "This isn't worth it." or "I can't take this anymore." I want a mechanic that supports that. Hence, the "quitting" mechanic. It's not the easy way out. The player is quitting on his wife, his child, his mother, etc. That's not an easy thing to do. But the option is always there. And the GM can tempt you every moment. It's delicious, but nasty and scary.

II'm still not clearly seeing how you envision players quiting.Is this of help? Or I'm just too stubborn?

Heh, no you are not being too stubborn. Walking away from the game allows the players to come to the realization that they aren't willing to die for whatever they said they were. That might be for a million different reasons. Each player will be different. I imagine most players will try to save their beloved or die trying. However, I do believe there will be some who say, "This isn't worth it." or "I can't take this anymore." I want a mechanic that supports that. Hence, the "quitting" mechanic. It's not the easy way out. The player is quitting on his wife, his child, his mother, etc. That's not an easy thing to do. But the option is always there. And the GM can tempt you every moment. It's delicious, but nasty and scary.

Peace,

-Troy

Well, I see. I think that most people will not go for a decision that put them out of play, whatever they are facing. But if you are really fed-up of the situation, you may always decide to quit (you really want to make the players get to that situation, this is clear).But I see that if you tempt the players with any mechanical continuation or any possible enjoyment after quiting, then, there could be other reasons to quit that the real question, and you don't want that.

I'm curious to see how you plan to provide enough pressure to the characters/player to make them quit. I'm not sure I would like to play that, but I would say that most people have a kind of morbid attraction for fictional representations of extreme real situations.